Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chattri/archive1

MSincccc

• I will review this one; comments to follow. MSincccc (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

Indian soldiers in Brighton

• Could we trim this sub-section's heading to "Background"?
  • I like the extra detail and I can't think of any MoS-based to lose it.
• "among those to visit the pavilion during their stay were" → "among those who visited the pavilion during their stay were"
  • Done.
• "Photographs were taken of the deceased, which were sent to their relatives" → "Photographs of the deceased were taken and sent to their relatives"
  • I'm not sure about this, but done.
• The 21 Muslim men who died were taken to
  • How about "The 21 Muslim men who died were buried at..."?
    • I think it flows better as it is.
• "one in the workhouse" → "one in a workhouse"
  • Unless we are referring to a specific workhouse.
    • We are indeed referring to a specific workhouse.
• "despite the fact that" → "although"
  • I don't think "although" adequately conveys the uniqueness of the situation.
• instilling Imperial pride
  • Lowercase "imperial"? Also, how about "fostering" in place of "instilling"?
    • I could go either way on this so we'll go yours.
• "considered it to be of great importance"→ "considered it of great importance"
  • Done.
• "near Patcham, high on the South Downs" → "near Patcham on the South Downs"
  • No worries with the present version. A suggestion lest "high" could be dropped.
    • I think I prefer it the way it is but I don't feel strongly about this one.
• "ceased accommodating Indian soldiers" → "ceased to accommodate Indian soldiers"
  • Done.
• dietary and religious requirements of the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
  • Do we need the definite article before "Hindus"?
    • I think it's helpful. We're talking about these Hindus (etc) in particular, not Hindus in general.

MSincccc (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc Thank you for taking a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the hospital in the Brighton Workhouse was renamed as the Kitchener Indian Hospital while serving as a hospital for Indian soldiers. It eventually became the Brighton General Hospital (the article mentions its use as a ww1 hospital). We may want to add those links and properly source. Erp (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Inception

• We could link town centre and reimbursement?
  • Both of those are common English terms and neither is crucial to this article. I know I'm a lot more conservative in my linking than most people but I don't think either of those links would be helpful. Almost any term could be linked in an encyclopaedia with seven million entries but we should focus on the most important ones.
• Jacob had worked extensively in India and was widely associated with the Indo-Saracenic architectural style and in particular was known for his use of chhatri, elevated domes supported on pillars.
  • How about "and, in particular, was known for his use of chhatri,"?
  • An alternative: How about "was particularly"?
    • Done (the first one).
• Also, "chhatris" in place of "chhatri"?
  • I'm not sure about this. Our article seems to suggest the plural form is the same as the singular but it's not a term I was familiar with before I started researching this.
    • I think ‘chhatris’ is clearer here since it’s a plural (‘elevated domes’). Happy to defer if needed. MSincccc (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Funds were raised and Henriques completed his design by 1917.
  • Do we know who the funds were raised by?
    • The sources don't specify, other than the sharing of costs between the borough and the government. I would guess that the borough had to do some fundraising but that's speculation.
• "soon after the last cremations" → "soon after the final cremations"
  • Done.
• "were owned by Marquess of Abergavenny" → "were owned by the Marquess of Abergavenny"
  • Done.
• "Jacob, 75 years old, declined the commission" → "Jacob, aged 75, declined the commission"
  • I think it flows better as it is.
• "Henriques waived a fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses" → "Henriques waived his fee and accepted only reimbursement of expenses"
  • Done.

MSincccc (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Design and setting

• "...each has four brackets projecting from them." → "...projecting from it."
• "from a path off a bridleway off the A27 Brighton Bypass" → "from a path off a bridleway from the A27 Brighton Bypass"
• "which itself stands over three blocks of granite" → "which itself stands on three blocks of granite"
• "The plinth is square, and stepped down..." → "The plinth is square and stepped down..."
• "The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella." → "The Chattri is roughly umbrella-shaped." (a suggestion)

Unveiling

• We could link to the British royal family.
• "Edward, Prince of Wales presided." → "Edward, Prince of Wales, presided." (commas needed for the non-restrictive appositive)
• "...was imperialistic and a 'symbolic performance'" → "...was imperialistic and constituted a 'symbolic performance'"
• "and the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre and to the construction of the Chattri." → "and to the exception to the law allowing the open-air pyre, and to the construction of the Chattri."

MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, @MSincccc. I think I'd want a source or a native speaker to weigh in on chattri vs chattris. And I don't think the royal family link is likely to add to the reader's understanding. Other than that, I think I've addressed your latest batch. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I note the article on Chhatri is not consistent. The intro uses same word for singular and plural but later in the article an 's' is sometimes added for plural. And the spelling variants are considerable. We might want to look for usage in recent scholarly articles. Erp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Later history

• "fell to the Borough of Brighton but the memorial was neglected" → "fell to the Borough of Brighton, but the memorial was neglected"
• "no replacement was appointed and the cottage was demolished" → "no replacement was appointed, and the cottage was demolished"
• "Previously, the names were spread between the Hollybrook Memorial" → "Previously, the names were split between"

Lead

• "a chattri or chhatri (a word which means ‘umbrella’" → "a chattri or chhatri (a word meaning ‘umbrella’"
• "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire and show that Indian troops were well treated." → "Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that Indian troops were well treated."
• "At least one suggested that its neglect" → "At least one has suggested that its neglect"

Bottom line

• HJ Mitchell That's all from me. A fine read, and I won't mind the chattri vs chattris point that much. I look forward to your response. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thoughts @HJ Mitchell? MSincccc (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell It's been ten days since I took the article up for review. It has been a fine read, and everything else feels like stylistic polish. I have nothing more to add here. Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

• Some images are missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikki, I hadn't thought to check the one image that survived my rewrite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Support from VWF

Will be reading this and reviews coming soon. –VWF

• The claim that the Indian Army had "never previously been deployed outside of South Asia" is too categorical and appears historically unsafe. I checked the source and it does not support this exact wording. Its more limited claim is that the Indian Army was reserved for regional combat in South Asia and that Indian soldiers had never previously fought alongside British troops in a European war. Those are not equivalent to never having deployed outside South Asia under any circumstances. Something like "The Indian Army had generally been reserved for regional operations in South Asia, and Indian soldiers had not previously fought alongside British troops in a European war." anyhow is what is expected at least.
  • Good point. Amended.
• The lead says the Chattri "was built in 1921", while the body says construction ran from August to the end of 1920; the category is also "Buildings and structures completed in 1920".
  • Indeed. Construction was complete by the end of 1920 but it wasn't unveiled until February 1921. Fixed.
• The infobox uses File:Chattri front view 2024-07-19.jpg, but its caption reads "The memorial in 2010". Is this not an obvious mismatch that needs fixing?
  • Removed. Good catch; I replaced the image but not the caption when preparing the article.
• Nairn & Pevsner, p. 458. is cited but I can't find that in the bibliography.
  • Hmm. Not sure what happened here. Must be a gremlin introduced in re-drafting. I've removed it for now; if I remember what I was trying to do, I'll re-add it with a full citation.
• The Bance 2024 source has a url different from the archive-url entirely.
  • I don't know what that means or whether it's a problem. I'm no good with the fiddly side of references.
• "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri." This does not tell readers anything specific, I believe it should be dropped.
  • I think this is a reasonable introduction and preferable to an abrupt change of topic but I'm not wedded to it.
• The lead says "over 4,000" Indian soldiers were treated in Brighton, while the body gives "over 4,300". Use one figure consistently, preferably the more precise one supported in the body.
  • Done.
• "This extended to the correct funerary rites, the exception to the law to allow the open-air pyre …", The earlier statement says there was "some debate" over legality and that government sanction was required, so "exception to the law" is stronger than the earlier account, and the language should be harmonised.
  • I see what you're getting at but it was unclear whether the cremations were allowed or not but an exception was made anyway.
• "The event is supported by …", shouldn't this be past-tense?
  • The event still takes place annually so present-tense is correct I believe.
• Instead of citing "Barringer, section: 'In the Trenches'." this way, why not use page numbers? It was somehow difficult to find the sections without search for them.
  • Because the version I used was an HTML document with no page numbers.
• The lead says "Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. Several have suggested that its purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and show that Indian troops were well treated. At least one suggested that its neglect after the unveiling ceremony was evidence of the British government's insincerity, but that it had been repurposed by the local community."

• The body says "According to the art historian Tim Barringer, the intended audience was India—although nationalist tensions had been set aside during the war, they were gaining momentum again by 1921. During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly."

• But after checking the cited source, it does not exactly support "During the war, the British authorities had been keen to show that Indian soldiers were being treated properly." That is broader than the passage. Barringer here says that the Raj was anxious to be seen mourning Indian soldiers and that the ceremony communicated loyalty, imperial connection, and care. He does not directly make the broader claim that authorities wanted to demonstrate that Indian soldiers were generally "being treated properly"
• This also appear in the lead and should be rephrased. I could say "Scholars have interpreted the Chattri as both a war memorial and an imperial political symbol, intended to support ties between India and Britain and to demonstrate public recognition of Indian soldiers' service." or something like that.
• For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces, I think that all of your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've got the last one yet. It's on my list for tomorrow/Monday. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces apologies for the delay. I believe I've addressed everything now. Your last point took a bit of thinking about. I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but you're right that Barringer focuses specifically on the funerary rites. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: LGTM, happy to support promotion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead you say was damaged by target practice, in the body it's rifle practice. Assuming the latter is correct, changing the lead to match makes it more accurate. As it stands, could be heavy artillery.
  • Reasonable point. So done.
• I linked workhouse
• where a ghat (open-air funeral pyre) was built and the bodies were cremated.—Looking at our articles on ghat and shmashana, the latter seems more accurate, and you have parenthesised the meaning, so nothing lost.
  • Ghat is the term used almost universally by the sources (some use "pyre"); I haven't come across the other term.
• Lakhbir Jassal described the rituals as "imperial paternalism". —no indication of who he his, so why does his opinion matter?
  • They're an academic of one flavour or another but I can only find their affiliation, which I've added.
• local Sikh teacher took on the responsibility—name?
  • Their name is in some of the more derailed sources but I tend to err on the side of leaving out the names of non-notable living people.
• I agree with @Vanderwaalforces: comment For the Ashley point, I believe you should name her rather than saying "at least one".

• Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell: is this FAC still active? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I've been busy recently and I'm not on-wiki every day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Jimfbleak I believe I've addressed everything from you and VWF now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Happy to Support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why do some Bibliography entries include |ref=none and others not?

• Be consistent in how you format short cites to sections

• Why is Singh formatted differently to the other books? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nikki, thanks for taking a look. I've added ref=none to all the books (I don't really understand what it does; apparently it's needed for a script to work, which feels a bit backwards). What was the inconsistency you spotted, was it the introduction, which isn't a section per se (it doesn't have a subheader like the others). Singh looks different because it's a chapter within a book. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Differing punctuation (section: " vs section ")

Singh: sure, but is there a reason this couldn't be done with the same template as the other entries? And is there a reason to repeat the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Fixed both (I didn't know the cite book template supported a chapter name with a different author, thanks to Erp for doing that). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy

• Throughout its life, academics have studied the Chattri. – The cited scholarship runs from 1999 to 2022.
  • This feels a little pedantic. I have recently added a piece from 1921 (because it was highlighted on the talk page) and there's probably more out there, so I don't feel this is an unreasonable statement.
    • I've just taken out the sentence. For Several academics have suggested that the Chattri's purpose was to promote Indian unity within the British Empire, and to show that the Indian casualties were treated with respect. – Whom are these academics? I think you should specify Ashley if she's one of them. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• The Commonwealth War Graves Commission unveiled a separate memorial on the same site in 2010, listing the names of the dead. – Specify that it's not all 74 soldiers.
  • The article says This memorial is a stone wall engraved with the names of the Hindu and Sikh dead. Do you think it needs to be clearer?
    • Yes, but that's in the body, I'm picking on the lead. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Brighton, being a resort town on the south coast and close to major ports, was well-positioned to accommodate the evacuees. – Presumably because of the latter more than the former?
  • Not entirely. Being a resort meant it had plenty of facilities to accommodate an influx of people.
• Over 4,300 Indian soldiers were treated in hospitals in Brighton, of whom 74 died of their wounds. – Died of their wounds, or died of their wounds/disease?
  • Died of wounds or complications from wounds; I've seen no coverage of widespread disease.
• Photographs of the deceased were taken, which were sent to their relatives in India along with a portion of their ashes. – Of their corpses?
  • Well, yes, but it goes without saying that a photo of a deceased person taken after their death is a photo of a corpse.
• After leaving office, Otter chaired Brighton's Indian Memorials Committee – When?
  • Added some context.
• It is roughly a mile and a quarter north-northeast (two kilometres) – Why not use numbers?
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, numbers below ten are written as words.
• The Chattri is roughly the shape of an umbrella. – The section above already covers this, redundant?
  • The section above tells us what the word means, not necessarily the shape of the monument.
• It is a domed pavilion rising to 30 feet (9.1 m) to the finial at its apex. – I think 'finial' and 'apex' are describing the same things, is it common practice to measure finials at their base or halfway through?
  • I don't think they're exclusive. "Apex" is the highest point, "finial" is the object that reaches it.
• The plinth bears an inscription in English, Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu, the text of which was prepared by Sir John Otter – Did Otter write the text in Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu?
  • I would imagine it was translated though by whom is not specified in the source material.
• The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?
• Otter initially approached the Duke of Connaught (a member of the royal family and army officer who had served in India), but the duke was due to be out of the country on the proposed date. – He approached him what for? The unveiling?
• The mayor and mayoress of Brighton and Otter joined at Brighton railway station and the party proceeded by car to Patcham, greeted by enthusiastic crowds along the route. – The party has not been introduced, so who did they 'join' with?
• Lakhbir Jassal, of the University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography – Does the 'University of Edinburgh Institute of Geography' grant Jassal any particular credibility? I think we shouldn't use academic titles in the same way we don't use 'Dr.'. Also, a brief Google search of the name doesn't allay my confidence, why is she qualified to speak on the subject?
• but the memorial was neglected in the years after the unveiling and was allowed to fall into disrepair. – I think the latter implies the former.
• and the India Office prompted the Borough Corporation into action in 1924, but complaints about the condition of the site continued. – What sort of action?
  • Minimal, hence the continued complaints.
    • If the source allows for it, it should be specified. Stikkyy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• This was agreed, though the corporation was reluctant to pay for the restoration works and postponed them to 1942. – This is the first mention of the 'restoration works', what did the plan entail?
• and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June. – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?
  • The ceremony has certainly continued. The most recent source for its continuation is Dunlop (2025), but it doesn't seem to attract much attention in reliable sources. It's one of those things that just quietly happens. The people in the relevant communities presumably know by word of mouth but don't document it. @Stikkyy: Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately I've only just seen them and I'm away for a week (at Wikimania in Paris) starting tomorrow. I hope you'll forgive me if I can't address the rest of your comments until the week after. To other reviewers: do feel free to leave comments if you were waiting for me, and I'll get to those in week's time as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Stikkyy (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• "The monument covers an area of 40 by 60 feet (12 by 18 metres) – I thought it was square?" I think the article has to be clear that the full site consists of a grey stone terraced enclosure which is the 40 by 60 feet (by eyeballing some aerial views, unfortunately none seem usable in wikipedia), inside is the Chattri proper (which is square) at one end overlooking the sites of the three ghats at the other end (the wreathes in the first picture are on the ghat sites), surrounding the terrace are landscaped gardens. I think the best picture currently in wikimedia commons for showing this is File:The_Chattri,_Brighton_09.jpg Ideally an aerial view would be useful.
• "and a public ceremony has been held annually since 2000 on the third Sunday in June – I note that all three cited sources predate COVID, did it have an impact? I also note that the centenary seems to have gone unmentioned, was there anything that was held then?", Services were held in 2020 (though only the organizer and presumably a camera person were present due to covid), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGZt1ogTu8), 2021 (it is mentioned that the 100th year since unveiling and 71st ceremony though nothing much more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7c-noOZII), and apparently every year since including this year.

Thoughts on two of the comments. Erp (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add

• It sits on a plinth (or terrace) of grey stone which itself stands on three blocks of granite covering the slabs used during the cremations. The plinth is square and stepped down four times on the eastern side. - this seems wrong. Looking at a satellite view, the plinth with the Chattri has three sets of steps down on the SSE side to another terrace with the three granite slabs on it that cover the location of the cremations. A last short set of steps leads to the exit to the wider garden

BTW https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9577815/ has a picture of the dedication ceremony which seems to be CC by-SA licensed and therefore, I think, usable by wikipedia Erp (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Harry, are you able to respond to the remaining comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)